Virtual Rivalries? Mapping the Intersection of National Identity and Gaming Culture in the Pacific Region International Studies Association 15 June – 17 June 2017 Hong Kong Timothy Kersey, Ph.D. Kennesaw State University [email protected] [Draft version; please do not cite without author’s permission] Introduction: Identity Formation in Electronically Mediated Contexts1 Since the widespread rollout of broadband internet availability in the early 2000s, the increased usage of networked communications technologies has generated a great deal of speculation and scholarship regarding potential social, political, economic, and cultural changes. Such changes emerge from the massively increased capacity for groups and individuals to communicate with each other outside and alongside of pre-existing (or ‘legacy’) forms of mediate communication. As the underlying infrastructure of communication changes (e.g. the ascendancy of smartphones), the behaviors and practices of communication change as well; commenting, retweeting, upvoting, liking, and sharing have become fundamental actions within the communications landscape structures by social media applications. Such changes in both technologies and cultural practices are commonly referred to as a shift from a mass-mediated public sphere to a networked public sphere.2 This change from mass-mediated to networked forms of communication is not simply a shift in technological applications (i.e. from television to internet), but also of different sets of organizing principles. Mass-mediated communications processes generally reflect ‘top-down’ processes through which similar messages are sent by a limited number of information producers to a mass (and presumably homogeneous) audience.3 Within this process, subject positions are relatively static: those in the audience function as consumers with little to no 1 Author’s note: This paper is a partial component of a broader work exploring relationships between contemporary political theory and forms of online communication and sociability. Developing this larger work entails a variety of conceptual and methodological challenges, some of which will be partially addressed in this paper and conference presentation. 2 Yochai Benkler, The wealth of networks : how social production transforms markets and freedom (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006). 10-13. 3 Castells, The rise of the network society, 359. [draft version; not for citation] 1 interaction with those who produce communicative content (e.g. members of the media system).4 Networked communications, on the other hand, structure much more open and dynamic relationships, in which the subjective positions of ‘producer’ and ‘consumer’ are far less clearly defined. While the existence of such a shift is fairly unambiguous, its overall significance is the subject of great consideration within nearly all fields of the humanities and social sciences. One realm in which the significance of emerging forms of cultural interaction can be examined is that of online multiplayer gaming, or ‘gaming culture.’ Determination of an appropriate conceptualization of ‘gaming culture’ represents an academic feat unto itself.5 Regarding ‘culture,’ this project proceeds from a generic sociological- practice oriented approach wherein the primary objects of study and analysis are actual observed behaviors of agents within a particular social space. The social space of ‘gaming culture’ represents a rich, complex, and densely-layered matrix of multiple interests, identities, and activities; before looking specifically at the potential significance of nationalism within gaming culture, some discussion of the structure of the broader social space of gaming culture is necessary. Commodities and Communities Understood very broadly, the social space of gaming culture can be seen as existing at the intersection of the commercial actors and institutions within the gaming entertainment 4 Thompson refers to this as “mediated quasi-interaction” See Thompson, The Media and Modernity : A Social Theory of the Media, 81–83. 5 For a representative examination of various approaches to conceptualizing video game culture, see Shaw, “What Is Video Game Culture?” [draft version; not for citation] 2 industry and the communities of users which emerge from the diffuse base of gaming consumers. Competition amongst game developers and publishers for their share of the 109B USD (2017 estimate) global gaming market necessarily requires a fairly intense commitment to meeting the demands of gaming consumers.6 Increasingly, such demands involve providing users with expressive and creative dimensions to gaming experiences; rather than being purely solitary in nature, contemporary games become social activities through a variety of mechanisms (e.g. online multiplayer gameplay, integrated chat / discussion, streaming of gameplay, spectatorship and commentary). Not surprisingly, these commercial and expressive interests do not always align, making gaming culture a site of potential contestation. Using Yochai Benkler’s terminology, the commercial modality of the gaming industry involves firm-based production and protection of intellectual properties, while the user/community modality of the gaming industry desires social production with a more permissive approach to intellectual properties.7 One example of such conflict occurred in April 2015 when American video game development firm Valve Corporation experienced a massive backlash from its customers after making changes to its popular game distribution platform Steam and its game development utility, the Steam Workshop. Originally launched in 2011, the Steam Workshop is described by Valve as “a central hub of player-created content and tools to publish, organize, and download that content into your games.”8 Through Steam Workshop, individuals could create various modifications (i.e. mods) to Workshop- enabled games and share them with other players on Steam; mods ranged in complexity from 6 “The Global Games Market 2017 | Per Region & Segment.” 7 Benkler, The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom, 10–13. 8 “About Steam Workshop.” [draft version; not for citation] 3 adjustments in graphics (e.g. the color and texture of water) to the addition of entirely new quests or objectives. Modding proved to be extremely popular among Steam users, creating both economic and cultural/symbolic connections between Valve and the Steam user community. For most games, mods and modding tools were offered to game owners through Steam at no additional cost. Steam Workshop thus generated a mutually beneficial economic relationship; users benefitted by extending the replay value of previously purchased games, while Valve enjoyed an ever increasing share of the gaming market and a highly loyal user base. Perhaps more importantly, the creation of a free (and minimally regulated or limited) marketplace for mods signified an authentic connection to the user community. By refusing to place limits on the creativity of the user community and denying the use of mods as a mechanism for extracting additional profits, Steam Workshop represented an intense symbolic relationship between Valve and their users – one which has effectively served to legitimate Valve’s dominance of the digital gaming market.9 This symbolic relationship, however, was temporarily strained in 2015, with the announcement that Valve would integrate a payment system to the Steam Workshop, beginning with Bethesda Software’s highly popular game, Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim. Creators of mods would have the ability to sell their modifications, or continue to offer them for free; specific prices for mods would be set by developers, with revenues divided between the mod developers, Valve, and Bethesda (the owner of Skyrim’s intellectual properties). Both Bethesda and Valve 9 While exact sales figures are not available, many estimates place Valve’s share of the downloaded games market near 70%. Chiang, “The Master of Online Mayhem.” [draft version; not for citation] 4 presented this change as a means of improving the user community by rewarding individual users for their creative labors.10 11 Skyrim fans (as well as the broader Steam community), however, reacted to these changes in a negative and highly vocal manner. Across a variety of social networking and gaming-oriented news sites, Steam users debated the various problems posed by the paid mod system; in less than 24 hours after the announced changes, 34,000 users signed a petition created on change.org calling for Valve to remove the paid content option.12 Steam users expressed a range of objections to the paid mod system, many of which contained some suggestion of inconsistency between with the norms of the community. In particular, the market logic of the paid mod system was perceived as a violation of the logic of sharing and reciprocity that had emerged within the modding community.13 The intensity of such negative reactions was readily noticed by executives at Valve and Bethesda; the removal of the paid mod system was announced on April 27, just four days after its introduction. In statements regarding this abrupt change of policy, executives validated the concerns of angry users and reiterated their good intentions regarding improvements to the Steam community.14 15 This is not to suggest, however, that the entirety of gaming culture prioritizes community and reciprocity; rather, as a subset of a more broadly conceptualized ‘internet culture,’ the social space of gaming